UMA (UMA)

🚨JUST IN: The people settling disputed Polymarket bets are the same people betting on them, per an Economist investigation.

When a Polymarket contract is disputed, holders of the UMA token vote to decide the outcome.

The Economist found a handful of wallets hold most of those votes while also holding large positions on the same bets.

I digest prediction market odds for breakfast.

There’s a ton of small opportunities on Trueo (liquidity is still a constrain, but that will change), and there appears to be some bigger opportunities on Polymarket.

Or at least it seems so on the surface…

but when you dig deeper, you notice that the Polymarkets which seem the most interesting often carry the most resolution risk.

1) It’s impossible to know whether a market’s rules will change after you place a bet or not.

2) It’s impossible to know if UMA holders are expected to follow some discrete precedent that affects how the rules are interpreted.

Imo aside from sports betting and elections, a lot of Polymarkets are less a game of forecasting and more a game of knowing when or how (1) and (2) will factor into a resolution.

That makes the game a lot less interesting.

And it’s easy to just blame UMA all the time (they’re definitely part of the problem), but I think Polymarket’s approach to clarifications is an even bigger issue.

TLDR - there’s no free punch on poly, if you see discrepant odds, there’s probably a reason behind it.

The coins that saw outflows from Binance are $UMA, $FET, $SLP, $LINK, $UNI, and $SUSHI. Outflows from exchanges are a bullish signal.

On the other hand, $JASMY, $CHZ, $AGLD, and $ALCX saw more inflows. https://t.co/v50LxQZrd8